The key element in biblical scholarship is open-mindedness and a willingness to be wrong. Put differently, scholars need to have a null hypothesis on the back burner, ready to be brought to the front burner when and if the evidence requires. Here are a few examples for your edification:

1) the discovery in 1993 of a 3000-year-old inscription which mentioned David being King of Israel and not just a figment as many higher critics believed; 2) the discovery by Italian archeologists of a first-century limestone block bearing the inscription "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea," when heretofore, higher critics thought Pilate to be a legendary character;

and 3) the discovery by a crew of builders from Israel's Ministry of Housing in 1968, who unearthed an ossuary containing the bones of a young man named Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol who was crucified with iron nails. How did they know this? A spike was left in the heel bone of the man, and apparently because the nail was difficult for a Roman soldier to remove (which was the custom then, given the scarcity and expense of iron)

) . Since the spike was bent at the tip (likely from having hit a knot in the wooden cross when it was being pounded in), rather than struggling with it, the soldier simply left the nail lodged in the malefactor’s heel bone. Heretofore, the higher critics disputed the Evangelists' account of Jesus’s crucifixion with nails, saying that crucifixion with nails was not a first-century practice. Wrong again!

I recommend heartily the following website, which I hope you won't dismiss with the wave of a hand and a few loud harumphs! Here it is: alwaysready.com/bible-evidence?id=99/#archeology.

As for every Bible verse needing to be put in the context of all other Bible verses . . .. I'm not suggesting that "And Sol begat Hymie, who begat Yakob, who begat Stumpy, who begat Yehudi . . ." needs to be contextualized in that way. Genesis 1:1-2, however, can and must be contextualized within the canon of Scripture, for pretty obvious reasons.

Moreover, one reason why Jesus (and Paul and Peter and James) quoted and/or alluded to so many "Old Testament" passages is because he realized and appreciated the continuity--and sometimes the discontinuity--between "what is written" and what was yet to be written shortly after his ascension into heaven before umpteen witnesses. I say "discontinuity," because

Jesus is known for having said numerous times, "You have heard that it was said [and variants on that expression], but I say to you . . .." In other words, he very quickly got to the heart of the Law of Moses by contextualizing the laws about adultery, murder, false vows, retributive punishment ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth") in an overarching principle which fairly can be called, for example, "the heart of the Law," or "the spirit of the Law," as opposed to the "letter of the Law."

While the higher critics may consider the concept of "progressive revelation" to be sheer nonsense, since many of them are too preoccupied with their micro views of individual books of the Bible (be they law, history, prophecy, poetry, proverbs, epistles--letters, or any other genre) to be concerned about how all the books just MIGHT fit together in a unified, coherent fashion.

For Pete's sake, Dick, why would even the most liberal of seminaries have required courses such as "Old Testament Survey" if they didn't believe there is some coherency of SOME sort in the Tanakh? Oh, and another thing, why do you think the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments aren't referred to by anyone, liberal or conservative,

, and read it with openness of mind and heart, allowing its author to take His word and penetrate us, even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, both exposing and judging the thoughts and intentions of our hearts (see Hebrews 4:12). It's kinda scary, to be sure, but sooooooo worth it, of this I assure you.

In conclusion, Dick, my biggest disappointment in your answer to my first dissertation is the absence of any answer regarding the psychological reasons biblical scholars, both liberal and conservative, stick to their guns and refuse to consider there just might be a middle ground which allows for the Bible to be not only a book to study and pick apart critically,

, but also a book which provides teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness for all of us, regardless of doctrinal and theological stripe, so that we might become better, more Christlike people who are adequately equipped for every good work (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Frankly, I think we (me included) stick to our guns because of pride, arrogance, and other assorted nasties. We stick to our guns because they are familiar and comfortable, and to lay them aside would require the admission we just could be wrong (a good definition of repentance!) and maybe, just maybe, God could be right.

That mindset is just what Hebrews 4:12 is talkin' about. When we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, admitting to God that his Bible has the right and the ability to judge our hearts' thoughts and intentions (or motives), which only he can discern because he's God, and we're not.

, it is then that we begin to realize the Bible is not just a textbook (though it can studied constructively and fruitfully in that way) but is also an "owners manual for human beings." Frankly, I'd be lost (and I WAS lost at one time) without the Bible, and I'll have more to say about that in future (as the Brits say; or as we Yanks say, "in the future"). Don

@rhetorician Hi again. You said, "biggest disappointment in your answer to my first dissertation is the absence of any answer regarding the psychological reasons biblical scholars, both liberal and conservative, stick to their guns and refuse to consider there just might be a middle ground"

You want to know why? Because (as I said above) I can't see inside their heads.

However, I do know that many scholars see the Bible as a book which provides teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, whether for all of us, at least for believers.

May I, with all courtesy, refer to your acknowledgement that you stick to your guns because of pride, arrogance, and other assorted nasties. Was that a formulaic Christian acknowledgement that we are all (therefore yourself included) are sinners, or a recognition of a genuine problem on your part (mine too for that matter)?

The trouble with formulaic Christian acknowledgements (along the lines of "I'm a sinner!") is that I never find anyone working to improve this status, merely leaving it to God or at least asking his pardon --- for being proud, arrogant ...

If this acknowledgement is a statement of what you believe is a problem in your approach to scholarship, it is of course much easier to fix. You just work on it.

In this brief comment, if I have overstepped the mark, please just let me know and I will apologise.

I don' t know about the Brits, but I think we would say "in the future" unless it is an indefinite future, when we might say "in future".

In future parse correctly!

I will say something about this in the future.

Hi, Dick: Rest assured you have not "overstepped the mark." I frequently tell my daughter, "Sweetie, you can tell me anything, as long as it's the truth; failing that (because not all things require absolute truth), just be honest."

Of course, honesty itself is a pretty slippery salmon. When we think we're being honest, we may not in fact be honest. Then there's the ol' communication bugaboo, in which our symbolic map simply does not match the territory. To be honest, one first has to have a pretty firm grasp on facts, which is a difficult thing in and of itself, given our shortcomings as fact gatherers.

Oops! "In order to be honest . . .." Facts, too, will always be filtered through a grid, and that grid is subject to all kinds of influences, biases, and the like. Maybe I'd better move on . . ..

I detect in your tone (which is "between the lines" in your missives) that you are dead set against "formulaic Christian acknowledgments." Frankly, I do not blame you, should my observation be at least somewhat accurate. Just this past Sunday, I was discussing with my class the idea that when Christ followers interact with non-Christ-followers, that they tone down on "Christian jargon" and "the language of Zion," which are two ways of referring to Christian gobbledygook.

One of my personal "bugs" is the expression "accept Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior and Lord." Instead of "Savior and Lord" I suggested to my class that "rescuer and boss" might be better adapted to and understood by non-Christ-followers. And so it goes.

"Technical" biblical terms and concepts such as regeneration, sanctification, atonement, reconciliation, and so many more, simply do not register with non-Christians, let alone make sense to them. Jesus, when speaking to the crowds, used simple words, simple concepts, simple parables (stories), and he didn't (as far as we know) drone on for hour upon hour when speaking publicly.

In summary, then, I, along with you, am wary of and avoid using "formulaic Christian acknowledgments." As for the acknowledgment that I am a sinner, well, the truth is, I am. It's not something I'm proud of, but it's a reality I deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Do I "work on it"? Of course. My work, however, is not a "pull myself up by my bootstraps" kind of work. It's also a process, a progressive process. Call it gradual transformation, if you will.

And speaking of the Holy Spirit, I do believe that if a person is not indwelt (uh-oh, Christian jargon strikes again) by God's Holy Spirit, the things of God cannot truly make sense to him or her; they are like a foreign language, so to speak. Oh, folks can understand the Bible as literature, and they can deconstruct it as they would a novel by Charles Dickens, but

understanding something in ones head (i.e., intellectually) is one thing. Understanding and believing something in one's heart is quite another. In fact, I suggest the longest or greatest distance from one point to another in this vast universe of ours, is the 18 inches (21.6 cm) from brain to heart.

There were many followers and hangers-on in Jesus day who were attracted to his words, his authority, and his miracles. They believed Jesus, but unlike Jesus' true disciples, they did not believe in Jesus--enough, anyway to allow his message to change their lives.

In conclusion, then, I suggest that folks who treat the Bible as simply religious literature and nothing else are very much like the hangers-on in Jesus' day. And, to be blunt, if they have not been regenerated (born from above, born again), how can Christians expect them truly to comprehend what this new birth is all about?

Nicodemus, an intelligent and highly religious dude blanched when Jesus talked about the necessity of being born again (the words "born again" may be put into the category of "formulaic Christian acknowledgments" but they are words which are straight from Jesus' mouth--that is, if we are to believe that John was an accurate historian and transcriber of Jesus' words, or in higher-critical perspective IF John was actually the writer of the Gospel which bears his name!

). Well, that's all for today, Dick. We'll meet again soon in THE future, I'm sure. Have a great day--what's left of it, that is, as you are six(?) hours ahead of me (it's 1:22, Eastern Standard Time).